The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).
Background
On 1 June 2021, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance handed down another lengthy Judgment in the long-running dispute among certain members of the prominent Lo family.
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (the “CFA“) has clarified in a recent judgment the application of section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (“CWUMPO“) and when the court will grant a validation order.
Initial arrangements have been put in place for mutual recognition and assistance to be provided by courts in Mainland China and Hong Kong in respect of corporate insolvency proceedings. This is a significant and long awaited development which could substantially enhance the ability for cross border insolvencies and restructurings to be administered and implemented across the two jurisdictions.
The High Court has held that an examination conducted pursuant to an order made under s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA”) did not attract witness immunity. The result was that the joint liquidators were permitted to amend their particulars of claim to plead a claim for breach of duty relating to false statements made in the course of the examination: Mitchell v Al Jaber [2021] EWHC 912 (Ch).
On 14 May 2021, the Vice-President of the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC and the Hong Kong Secretary for Justice signed a brief Record of Meeting, setting out a consensus on the mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the Mainland China and Hong Kong.
In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has paved the way for restructuring plans (RPs) under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are “out of the money”.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).
Background
In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has yesterday1 paved the way for restructuring plans under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 ("RPs") to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are "out of the money". There may even be no need to ask those compromised creditors to vote on the RP.
Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.
Background